coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Aykhal, a town in Yakutia.
5.  In 1990 the applicant subscribed to a State savings scheme for buying a car. The State failed to provide the car, and the applicant sued the Ministry of Finance.
6.  On 19 August 2003 the Mirninskiy District Court awarded the applicant 138,967 Russian roubles (RUB). This judgment became binding on 6 October 2003, but was not enforced immediately.
7.  On 23 October 2003 the District Court mailed enforcement papers to bailiffs. On 27 November 2003 the bailiffs returned the papers because of formal defects and advised the District Court that the judgment had to be enforced by the Ministry directly. On 15 June 2004 the enforcement papers reached the Ministry.
8.  On the Ministry’s request, on 4 March 2005 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Yakutia quashed the judgment on supervisory review, having found that the District Court had ignored a key material law.
9.  On 4 February 2006 the Ministry paid to the applicant RUB 40,648.27 under the State program of redemption of in-kind debentures.
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Turkey.
5.  On 6 November 1992 the applicant was taken into custody within the context of a police operation carried out against an illegal organisation, namely the TKP/ML – TIKKO (the Turkish Communist Party-Marxist Leninist - Turkish Workers and Peasants’ Liberation Army). On 17 November 1992 the applicant was placed in detention on remand.
6.  By an indictment dated 10 February 1993 the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant before the Istanbul State Security Court, accusing him, inter alia, of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of involvement in activities which aimed at undermining the constitutional order of the State. The prosecution sought the death penalty under Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.
7.  On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judge sitting on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court was replaced by a civilian judge.
8.  On 12 June 2000 the applicant was convicted as charged by the Istanbul State Security Court and sentenced to death.
9.  On 15 May 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed the applicant’s conviction for procedural reasons. The case was remitted to the Istanbul State Security Court for further examination.
10.  On 18 July 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant’s release pending trial.
11.  On 7 May 2004 State Security Courts were abolished following a constitutional amendment and the applicant’s case was transmitted to the Istanbul Assize Court.
12.  On 31 January 2005 the Istanbul Assize Court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment, pursuant to Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code.
13.  On 20 March 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the Istanbul Assize Court’s judgment for having erred in its assessment of the facts. The case was remitted to the Istanbul Assize Court for re-trial.
14.  Between 12 May 2006 and 30 May 2007 the Istanbul Assize Court held six hearings and dealt with procedural issues, such as the delivery of arrest warrants, the appointment of advocates for some of the accused and the extension of time-limits for defence submissions, etc.
15.  On 21 May 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court delivered its judgment in respect of the applicant and thirteen other co-accused who stood trial for actively participating in the illegal activities of the TKP/ML – TIKKO with a view to undermining the constitutional order of the State. Having established that the applicant had been involved in armed attacks, the killing of several individuals and robberies, the court found the applicant guilty of the alleged offence and sentenced him to life imprisonment, pursuant to Article 146 § 1 of the Criminal Code. The applicant appealed.
16.  The proceedings are currently pending before the Court of Cassation.
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Libertów.
5.  On 18 November 1993 the applicant divorced.
6.  On 17 June 1994 she lodged with the Kraków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a claim for division of matrimonial property consisting of a family house in Jankówka and a right to a flat in a housing-co-operative in Kraków.
7.  Between 8 November 1994 and 2 August 2000, the Kraków District Court scheduled forty-five hearings, nine of which were adjourned and one expert report was obtained.
8.  On 13 December 2000 the court issued an interim order (zarządzenie tymczasowe) securing the applicant’s claim. On 19 December 2000 the defendant appealed against the making of the order. On 19 July 2001 the court amended its order.
9.  At a hearing held on 16 November 2001 the Kraków District Court gave a preliminary decision (postanowienie wstępne) on the parties’ respective shares in the matrimonial property.
10.  The applicant and the defendant appealed on 4 February and 12 March 2002, respectively.
11.  On 24 January 2003 the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) amended the preliminary decision and dismissed the defendant’s appeal. His cassation appeal was rejected on 22 April 2003 on procedural grounds.
12.  On 15 March 2004 the court ordered that an expert report be obtained. The report was submitted on 30 July 2004.
13.  On 11 October 2005 the court held a hearing.
14.  On 7 February 2006 the court ordered that the third expert report be obtained.
15.  At a hearing held on 29 December 2006 the applicant’s lawyer made a friendly-settlement proposal. The court stayed the proceedings.
16.  On 20 July 2007 the District Court resumed the proceedings and delivered a partial decision (postanowienie częściowe) in the case, concerning the composition of the matrimonial property. The defendant appealed against this decision. On 7 April 2008 the Kraków Regional Court rejected the defendant’s appeal.
17.  The proceedings are still pending.
18.  On 23 November 2004 the applicant lodged with the Kraków Regional Court a complaint under section 5 of the Law on 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
19.  She sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Kraków District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 2,500 euros (EUR)).
20.  On 13 January 2005 the Kraków Regional Court dismissed her complaintin the part alleging., to the Supreme Court. The court observed that the proceedings had indeed been lengthy but it was the applicant’s husband who had been responsible for the delay in examination of the case. The court categorically stated that the Kraków District Court was not responsible for the protracted length of the proceedings.
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Timişoara.
5.  In 1960, the plots of land situated in Cluj-Napoca, E. Murgu Street nos. 15-21 and 40, which were the property of the applicant’s father, were seized by the State under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation.
6.  On 8 September 1998 the Cluj Court of Appeal, by a final decision, allowed an action by the applicant, annulled the seizure as being unlawful and ordered restitutio in integrum.
7.  Although there had been judicial recognition of his property rights, the applicant was not able to recover possession of some of these plots of land because on 14 March 1996 the authorities had issued ownership titles to third parties under Law no. 18/1991. These titles concerned the plots of land situated on E. Murgu Street nos. 17, 19 and 21 and registered in the Land Register under nos. 13956/9/2, 13958/4/2, 13956/10/2, 13958/5/2, 13956/11/3, 13958/6/3, 13957/9/3, 13956/11/2, 13958/6/2 and 12957/9/2, with a total surface of 1,088 sq. m.
8.  On 17 May 2001 the applicant brought proceedings against the third parties for the Land Register to be rectified. On 3 July 2003 the Cluj Court of Appeal, by a final decision, dismissed the action. The court noted that the final decision of 8 September 1998 had certified the applicant’s right of property, but refused to annul the land titles of the third parties on the grounds that the applicant had neither registered that action in the Land Register nor lodged an action under Laws nos. 18/1991 and 169/1997 to annul these titles.
9.  On 12 November 2001 the applicant claimed restitution in kind of the land under Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State. So far he has not received any response.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Kál, Hungary.
5.  On an unspecified date in early 2001 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant. On completion of the investigation, a bill of indictment was preferred on 5 June 2001. The applicant and his accomplice were charged with forgery of official documents.
6.  After having held five hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert, on 28 May 2003 the Hatvan District Court gave judgment.
7.  On appeal, on 27 February 2004 the Heves County Regional Court quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
8.  In the resumed proceedings, the case was joined to another trial on 6 October 2004.
9.  Following four hearings, on 29 September 2005 the applicant was acquitted. After the prosecution had withdrawn its appeal, this judgment gained binding force on 7 December 2005. The applicant was notified of this on 17 January 2006.
10.  Between 25 June 2001 and 1 July 2003 the applicant was prevented from travelling abroad, under section 16(1a) of Act no. 12 of 1998, because criminal proceedings involving serious charges were pending against him. This prohibition ceased to exist because of a change in the legislation.
4.  The applicants are brothers, who were born in 1941, 1933 and 1937 respectively and live in Cluj-Napoca.
5.  In 1950, a property situated in Cluj-Napoca, 15-17 Someşului Street, which was the property of the applicants’ parents, was seized by the State under Decree no. 92/1950 on nationalisation. The property was made up of ten apartments and appurtenant land.
6.  On 31 January 2001 the Cluj Court of Appeal, by a final decision, allowed an action by the applicants, annulled the seizure as being unlawful and ordered restitutio in integrum.
7.  Although they had judicial recognition of their property right, the applicants were not able to recover possession of Apartments 5 to 9 because the State had sold them in 1996-1997 to the then tenants under Păduraru v. Romania, no. 63252/00, § ..., ECHR 2005‑... (extracts) Law no. 112/1995.
8.  On 12 July 2001 the applicants claimed restitution in kind of the property under Law no. 10/2001 governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the State. So far they have not received any answer.
9.  On 6 December 2002 the Cluj Court of Appeal, by a final decision, upheld in part an action by the applicants to declare the sale by the State of Apartments 5 to 9 null and void. The court declared the sale of Apartments 8 and 9 null and void, striking the third parties off the Land Register, on the ground that the sale was made after the entry into force of Government Decision no. 11/1997 prohibiting the sale by the State of property to which it had no lawful title. As for Apartments 5 and 6, it considered that the third parties had made the purchase in good faith.
10.  On 16 December 2002 the applicants took possession of Apartments 1-4, 7 and 10 and of 1,490 sq. m of appurtenant land.
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Mezőtúr.
5.  In July 1988 the applicant had a road accident and suffered serious injuries resulting in permanent disability. On 7 January 1990 he brought an action in compensation before the Mezőtúr District Court against the company whose employee had caused the accident and an insurance company.
6.  On 30 May 1995 the District Court, after having held five hearings and obtained the opinions of various experts, found for the applicant and awarded him 1,000,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 4,000 euros (EUR)) in compensation. On appeal, the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Regional Court changed the first-instance decision and dismissed the applicant’s action on 4 February 1997. The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. On 16 November 1998 the Supreme Court dismissed his petition as time-barred, without an examination on the merits.
7.  In May 1999 the applicant requested the reopening of the proceedings. In September 1999 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request. On appeal, the Regional Court changed the first-instance decision and ordered the reopening of the case in December 1999.
8.  In the reopened proceedings, the District Court upheld the Regional Court’s decision on 25 June 2002. The applicant appealed. The Regional Court reversed the District Court’s decision and found for the applicant. Concerning the amount of compensation, the Regional Court remitted the case to the first-instance court on 5 December 2002.
9.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court on 30 July 2003 awarded the applicant HUF 450,000 (approximately 1,785 euros) in compensation. On appeal, on 11 November 2004 the Regional Court raised the amount to HUF 3,631,176 (approximately 14,408 euros) plus accrued interest and ordered the defendants to pay a monthly allowance of HUF 38,857 (approximately 154 euros) to the applicant. This decision was served on the applicant on 7 December 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Győr.
5.  On 3 February 1995 company G. brought an action against the applicant, requesting the Győr District Court to hold, inter alia, that the termination of a lease contract was valid.
6.  On 12 October 1995 the court adopted a partial decision holding that the termination was valid and requiring the applicant to vacate the real estate in question. On appeal, on 7 November 1996 the Győr-Moson-Sopron County Regional Court reversed that partial decision and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim concerning the validity of the termination.
7.  In the resumed first-instance proceedings, on 3 July 1997 the District Court ordered the applicant to pay 1.1 million Hungarian forints (HUF) in compensation and rejected his counterclaims. On appeal, on 21 January 1998 the Regional Court upheld the decision about the payment of HUF 1.1 million but quashed the remainder of the first-instance decision.
8.  In the resumed first-instance proceedings, the District Court held several hearings, obtained the opinion of an expert, and rejected the applicant’s counterclaims on 22 May 2001. On appeal, on 28 November 2001 the Regional Court quashed that decision.
9.  In the resumed proceedings, the case was transferred to the bench of the Regional Court competent to deal with it. That court held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert. On 6 April 2004 the applicant was awarded HUF 2.8 million plus accrued interest. On appeal, on 6 July 2004 the Budapest Court of Appeal reduced the award. This decision was served on 29 July 2004.
10.  The applicant filed a petition for review, alleging that the final decision was unfounded and at variance with the relevant substantive law.
11.  In a preliminary examination under section 273 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on 5 November 2004 the Supreme Court refused to deal with the merits of the petition. It applied section 270 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as in force in the relevant period, according to which a review of the substantive unlawfulness of final decisions was only admissible if a review was considered necessary from the perspective of harmonising or developing the application of the law.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Łódź.
5.  On 19 September 1996 the applicant lodged an application for division of an inheritance and dissolution of co-ownership with the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The inheritance consisted of an apartment, money deposited on bank accounts and golden jewellery.
6.  During the proceedings the hearings were scheduled approximately once a year. The hearings were often adjourned due to the judge’s illness or the parties’ lawyers’ failure to appear.
7.  On 8 February 2000 the applicant lodged an application with the District Court for the case to be dealt with speedily as, on account of unpaid rent for the apartment, being a part of the inheritance, the estate had fallen into debt.
8.  On 18 October 2006 the District Court ruled on the inheritance rights and awarded the applicant money and furniture. The applicant appealed.
9.  On 16 April 2007 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) partially amended the District Court’s judgment and increased the sum awarded to the applicant. On 111 May 2007 the Regional Court issued a writ of execution in respect of the judgment.
The enforcement proceedings are pending.
10.  On 27 April 2005 the applicant filed a complaint with the Łódź Regional Court under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
11.  The applicant sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Łódź District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 20,684.79 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 5,200 euros (EUR)).
12.  On 20 June 2005 the Łódź Regional Court gave a decision in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings before the Łódź District Court. It awarded the applicant PLN 3,000 (approximately EUR 750) in just satisfaction. The court referred to the overall length of the proceedings and to the complexity of the case.
13.  The applicant appealed. On 20 July 2005 the Regional Court rejected the appeal as inadmissible in law.
4.  The applicant was born in 1946 and currently lives in New Portland, the United States.
5.  In March 1996 a third person on the applicant’s behalf sold his car to another third person. The sale was carried out on the basis of a power of attorney issued by the applicant to the third person in 1993.
6.  On 11 November 1996 the applicant asked the Syktyvkar Town Court to declare null and void the sale of his car claiming that it had been performed contrary to his will and on the basis of a revoked and thus invalid power of attorney.
7.  On 14 May 1998 the Town Court held the first hearing of the case. It appears that the proceedings were adjourned at least on five occasions: on 18 September 1998, 12 July and 2 November 1999, on 27 June 2001 and on 26 August 2002, when on the latter date, the case was, according to the Government, adjourned as the judge was busy in unrelated proceedings.
8.  On 30 January 2003 the Town Court examined and dismissed the applicant’s claim in absentia. The applicant received a copy of the reasoned version of the judgment on 12 February 2003 and introduced a notice of appeal. Since the applicant failed to pay the court fee and to make the relevant number of copies of his statement of appeal, the court twice refused to examine his appeal and set new time-limits for lodging it. The applicant was requested to comply with the procedural requirements.
9.  On 25 March 2003 the applicant’s appeal was disallowed due to his failure to comply with the procedural requirements and to pay the court fee.
10.  The applicant unsuccessfully attempted to contest this decision. His further appeals were disallowed as they were introduced outside the time-limit. The requests to extend the time-limit were rejected as unsubstantiated.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Moscow.
5.  The applicant is a colonel of the Border Guard Service. In May 2004 he sued his command for its failure to grant his early discharge from service with the provision of a flat as guaranteed by domestic law.
6.  On 11 October 2004 the Moscow Garrison Court ordered the applicant’s command to provide his family with a flat in Moscow and, once the flat had been provided, to grant the applicant an early discharge. On appeal, on 14 January 2005 the Military Court of the Moscow Command modified the award. It ordered that the flat did not necessarily have to be in Moscow, that the flat should have been provided out of turn, and that the defendant was to pay 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB) by way of non-pecuniary damages.
7.  This judgment became binding on the day of its adoption but was not enforced immediately. For this reason, from January 2005 the applicant rented private flats.
8.  On 12 May 2005 the Border Guard Service paid to the applicant RUB 5,000.
9.  In July 2005 the command offered the applicant two rooms in a service dormitory, but the applicant rejected this offer as unsuitable.
10.  On 16 August 2006 the Housing Commission of the Border Guard Service decided to provide the applicant with a flat in Moscow and asked the applicant to submit papers necessary for the recording of his title. In December 2006 the applicant submitted the papers, but since in January 2007 their validity had expired, he had to resubmit them. On 9 April 2007 the applicant’s title to the flat was recorded.
11.  On 12 July 2007 the applicant was discharged from service.
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Tver, a town in the Tver Region. In 1997–2003 he was engaged in two sets of civil proceedings.
5.  The applicant sued a municipal maintenance enterprise for its failure to repair a leaking roof in his house. On 17 November 1997 the Central District Court of Tver ordered the enterprise to repair the roof by 15 December 1997. This judgment became binding on 27 November 1997. According to the Government, this judgment was enforced on 15 December 2000. According to the applicant, this judgment has not been enforced to date.
6.  In 1998–2001 bailiffs several times terminated the enforcement proceedings considering that the enterprise had repaired the roof, but the applicant asserted that the roof still leaked, and courts ordered the bailiffs to resume the enforcement.
7.  In June 2000 the applicant sued several defendants (among them the Ministry of Justice – the authority responsible for the bailiffs) for their failure to enforce the judgment. After one first-instance and one appeal hearing, on 23 December 2002 the District Court found that the bailiffs should not have terminated the enforcement proceedings, ordered them to resume the proceedings, and awarded the applicant 5,000 Russian roubles by way of non-pecuniary damages against the Ministry of Justice. This judgment became binding on 18 February 2003 after an appeal hearing. The appeal court stated that the damages were to be paid by the Treasury.
8.  On 18 February 2003 the applicant renounced the resumption of the enforcement proceedings because he had been frustrated by their past inefficiency. On this ground, on 6 May 2003 the bailiffs decided not to resume the enforcement proceedings.
9.  On the Treasury’s request, on 30 May 2003 the Presidium of the Tver Regional Court quashed the judgment of 23 December 2002 in the part concerning the damages. The Presidium found that the courts below had misinterpreted material law on non-pecuniary damages and that the bailiffs had not been responsible for the leaks.
The applicant was absent from this hearing. According to him, he had not been summoned. According to the Government, he had been informed about the time and place of the hearing by a letter of 18 May 2003.
10.  In separate proceedings the applicant sued the Savings Bank for its failure to restore the purchasing power of his deposits. He asked the court to hear the case in his absence.
11.  On 5 September 2003 the Gagarinskiy District Court of Moscow held against the applicant. In his appeal of 22 September 2003, the applicant asked for the case to be heard in his absence. In a corrigendum of 23 September 2003 the applicant asked for the case to be heard in his presence.
12.  On 3 November 2003 the District Court informed the applicant about the time and place of the appeal hearing.
13.  On 24 November 2003 the Moscow City Court rejected the appeal. The applicant was absent from this hearing.